Attitudes of psychotherapists towards their own performance and the role of the social comparison group: The self-assessment bias in psychodynamic, humanistic, systemic, and behavioral therapists. Thomas Probst, Elke Humer, Andrea Jesser and Christoph Pieh. Front. Psychol., October 13 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.966947
Abstract: Studies report that psychotherapists overestimate their own performance (self-assessment bias). This study aimed to examine if the self-assessment bias in psychotherapists differs between therapeutic orientations and/or between social comparison groups. Psychotherapists gave subjective estimations of their professional performance (0–100 scale from poorest to best performance) compared to two social comparison groups (“all psychotherapists” vs. “psychotherapists with the same therapeutic approach”). They further rated the proportion of their patients recovering, improving, not changing, or deteriorating. In total, N = 229 Austrian psychotherapists (n = 39 psychodynamic, n = 121 humanistic, n = 48 systemic, n = 21 behavioral) participated in the online survey. Psychotherapists rated their own performance on average at M = 79.11 relative to “all psychotherapists” vs. at M = 77.76 relative to “psychotherapists with the same therapeutic approach” (p < 0.05). This was not significantly different between therapeutic orientations. A significant interaction between social comparison group and therapeutic orientation (p < 0.05) revealed a drop of self-assessement bias in social comparison group “same approach” vs. “all psychotherapists” in psychodynamic and humanistic therapists (p < 0.05). Psychotherapists overestimated the proportion of patients recovering (M = 44.76%), improving (M = 43.73%) and underestimated the proportion of patients not changing (M = 9.86%) and deteriorating (M = 1.64%), with no differences between orientations. The self-assessment bias did not differ between therapeutic orientations, but the social comparison group appears to be an important variable. A major drawback is that results have not been connected to patient-reported outcome or objectively rated performance parameters.
Bipartisan Alliance, a Society for the Study of the US Constitution, and of Human Nature, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
Thursday, October 13, 2022
Irrespective of their therapeutic orientation, psychotherapists overestimated the proportion of patients recovering or improving, & and underestimated the proportion of patients not changing or deteriorating
When asked at what income level one is "rich," even the wealthiest state a higher figure than they themselves earn; they tink they belong to the middle class
The psychology of income wealth threshold estimations: A registered report. Robin Rinn, Anand Krishna, Roland Deutsch. British Journal of Social Psychology, October 11 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12581
Abstract: How do people estimate the income that is needed to be rich? Two correlative survey studies (Study 1 and 2, N = 568) and one registered experimental study (Study 3, N = 500) examined the cognitive mechanisms that are used to derive an answer to this question. We tested whether individuals use their personal income (PI) as a self-generated anchor to derive an estimate of the income needed to be rich (= income wealth threshold estimation, IWTE). On a bivariate level, we found the expected positive relationship between one's PI and IWTE and, in line with previous findings, we found that people do not consider themselves rich. Furthermore, we predicted that individuals additionally use information about their social status within their social circles to make an IWTE. The findings from study 2 support this notion and show that only self-reported high-income individuals show different IWTEs depending on relative social status: Individuals in this group who self-reported a high status produced higher IWTEs than individuals who self-reported low status. The registered experimental study could not replicate this pattern robustly, although the results trended non-significantly in the same direction. Together, the findings revealed that the income of individuals as well as the social environment are used as sources of information to make IWTE judgements, although they are likely not the only important predictors.
Abstract: How do people estimate the income that is needed to be rich? Two correlative survey studies (Study 1 and 2, N = 568) and one registered experimental study (Study 3, N = 500) examined the cognitive mechanisms that are used to derive an answer to this question. We tested whether individuals use their personal income (PI) as a self-generated anchor to derive an estimate of the income needed to be rich (= income wealth threshold estimation, IWTE). On a bivariate level, we found the expected positive relationship between one's PI and IWTE and, in line with previous findings, we found that people do not consider themselves rich. Furthermore, we predicted that individuals additionally use information about their social status within their social circles to make an IWTE. The findings from study 2 support this notion and show that only self-reported high-income individuals show different IWTEs depending on relative social status: Individuals in this group who self-reported a high status produced higher IWTEs than individuals who self-reported low status. The registered experimental study could not replicate this pattern robustly, although the results trended non-significantly in the same direction. Together, the findings revealed that the income of individuals as well as the social environment are used as sources of information to make IWTE judgements, although they are likely not the only important predictors.